If IQ ~ N(100,15), then P(IQ>=160) is about 1/30,000.
That’s probably not really that rare in academics. There are about 10,000 such people in the U.S. Most if not all of those 10,000 are econometricians trying to find a good instrument for something.

My IQ is 140, and I left. I could not stand that intellectual mastu*bation. Can't imagine someone with IQ>140 doing this crap for life. If a guy is a genius, he would find a much better way to apply his intellect.

My IQ is 140, and I left. I could not stand that intellectual mastu*bation. Can't imagine someone with IQ>140 doing this crap for life. If a guy is a genius, he would find a much better way to apply his intellect.

if you genuinely think there are very few economists with a 15x IQ, I really don't know what the f**k to say. Like, get out of your VLRM s**thole and meet some people. This discipline is a mess, and a high IQ doesn't guarantee good research, but economics certainly doesn't lack geniuses. Every year there are more >150 IQ students entering this field than in all other social sciences and humanities combined.

I think people do better on any "tests" with preparation than their true abilities would predict. This might be true even more so for very smart people. Given this, I think there might certainly be quite a few economists with IQs in 140s but very few in the 150s. IQs peter out out very quickly at that level. I think only people like Arrow and Nash would be above 160. As someone above mentioned, von Neumann might have been 180, maybe even higher.

I've met multiple economists with performance in their country's standardized exams that would translate to a percentile equivalent to 160iq or above.
Heck, I'd you got a 1600 in sat or GRE, you're in the range of 155 or above. And there are plenty of those in econ.

How can you say that someone who is obviously very smart has an IQ > 150 and not in the 140s or even high 130s? Because they got a certain score / rank on some popular test? I highly doubt even someone like Carroll or Sannikov would exceed 160 by much, if they are indeed even reaching 160 and not just high 150s.

I also doubt that any IQ test for adults is able to precisely generate the "true IQ" of any individual, especially at the higher levels. So, ultimately it is all about different people's perceptions about others' IQs and therefore all this is a fairly futile exercise.

if you genuinely think there are very few economists with a 15x IQ, I really don't know what the f**k to say. Like, get out of your VLRM s**thole and meet some people. This discipline is a mess, and a high IQ doesn't guarantee good research, but economics certainly doesn't lack geniuses. Every year there are more >150 IQ students entering this field than in all other social sciences and humanities combined.

I think people do better on any "tests" with preparation than their true abilities would predict. This might be true even more so for very smart people. Given this, I think there might certainly be quite a few economists with IQs in 140s but very few in the 150s. IQs peter out out very quickly at that level. I think only people like Arrow and Nash would be above 160. As someone above mentioned, von Neumann might have been 180, maybe even higher.

I've met multiple economists with performance in their country's standardized exams that would translate to a percentile equivalent to 160iq or above.
Heck, I'd you got a 1600 in sat or GRE, you're in the range of 155 or above. And there are plenty of those in econ.

there's data on gre score percentiles and IQ. almost a perfect predictor of IQ. And there are hundreds of students entering econ every year with percentiles that are equivalent to >150iq under the 16sd scale.

How can you say that someone who is obviously very smart has an IQ > 150 and not in the 140s or even high 130s? Because they got a certain score / rank on some popular test? I highly doubt even someone like Carroll or Sannikov would exceed 160 by much, if they are indeed even reaching 160 and not just high 150s.
I also doubt that any IQ test for adults is able to precisely generate the "true IQ" of any individual, especially at the higher levels. So, ultimately it is all about different people's perceptions about others' IQs and therefore all this is a fairly futile exercise.

if you genuinely think there are very few economists with a 15x IQ, I really don't know what the f**k to say. Like, get out of your VLRM s**thole and meet some people. This discipline is a mess, and a high IQ doesn't guarantee good research, but economics certainly doesn't lack geniuses. Every year there are more >150 IQ students entering this field than in all other social sciences and humanities combined.

I think people do better on any "tests" with preparation than their true abilities would predict. This might be true even more so for very smart people. Given this, I think there might certainly be quite a few economists with IQs in 140s but very few in the 150s. IQs peter out out very quickly at that level. I think only people like Arrow and Nash would be above 160. As someone above mentioned, von Neumann might have been 180, maybe even higher.

I've met multiple economists with performance in their country's standardized exams that would translate to a percentile equivalent to 160iq or above.
Heck, I'd you got a 1600 in sat or GRE, you're in the range of 155 or above. And there are plenty of those in econ.